March 5, 2007 by thinking girl
Vera’s got a great post up in response to a thinking-out-loud yet thought-provoking comment made by yours truly the other day, regarding the seeming divide between young and seasoned feminists. I wondered if young feminists just wanted to make every choice they made as women into a feminist one, and Vera has some interesting things to say, with which I believe I may concur. She’s a clever one, that Vera!
 | starry_lady on Blog for Choice Day 2008 |
 | Prash on International Women’s Da… |
 | holly kearl on street harassment |
 | badbillybovine on holding your hand is not my fu… |
 | Erik on georgia rule |
 | thinking girl on georgia rule |
 | Anji on georgia rule |
| thinking girl on street harassment |
 | shoutybloke on street harassment |
| shoutybloke on street harassment |
| thinking girl on georgia rule |
 | Been there on georgia rule |
 | saudi dude on Saudi national flees country b… |
 | 8 mar. 2007 « … on Feminism Weekender - Nati… |
| LO 2.0 » Holdi… on holding your hand is not my fu… |
I would rather think that looking good is (naturally) there in human females. The willingness to look good is likewise.
As was with all the previous revolutions/protests, it is common that the protesters were panaroid with everything relating to their adversary.
So when Christ preached Single God, even pagan texts of Science were abandoned!
And then they came back to it. Curiosity is a human thing.
(hides behind a tree and peeks to see if any stone is coming my way
)
Can someone translate that, because I don’t understand what that has to do with the topic at hand.
It’s pre-coffee, you see, and I’m about as sharp as a spoon, currently.
~~~
And shucks, TG - I’m blushing.
Hi all,
I’m confused with that comment too, Vera - but I think the jist of it is in this line,
combined with the idea that women are “naturally” a certain way.
Which of course is crazy-talk. “natural” doesn’t exist.
But I don’t really know what that has to do with the topic either. Manas, care to expand?
oh and Vera - my pleasure! not enough compliments are doled out in this blogosphere of ours, I think!
But hey ‘natural’ doesn’t exist? What you call sprouting of buds from seeds then? (don’t call me to explain again, you can find the relation, I am sure
)
Expanding is always tough.
So I was talking of this non-existent natural thing.
Women look better than men. (I confirmed that from my girl-friends (the dash makes all the difference)). I hope you have atleast heard of ‘the selfish gene’. So the beautiful DNA has a better chance of seeing the next ‘day’.
The crux is rightly identified by tg.
So, this has what to do with the discussion again? I’m still betting on “nothing”, to be honest.
TG - I did want to expand on points raised in the Thought post. But I am stumbling over explanations. Do you mind if I e-mail the rest (sometime this week or this weekend)?
Oh now, come come Manas. I think we both know that I was not talking about plants.
“natural” and “beauty” are both ideas, social constructions, and are not reliant on biology, or evolution.
Vera - yes, by all means, I’d be happy to check it out! I will be over to comment more thoughtfully tonight…
I guess the beauty of the sunset is also a social construct?
Or the call of the frogs?
Even the colourful flowers?
And the feathers of the peacock?
When I think beauty, I think frog calls.
Sorry, I couldn’t resist….
Manas - see, this is the problem as I see it. It’s twofold.
One, you assume too much. “beauty” is a social construction, as we’re talking about all kinds of types of beauty that are completely subjective. Not everyone agrees on what they find beautiful. (Me, and maybe Kyassett, not so much with the frogs.) So the idea that there is some objective Platonic form of “beauty” that exists somewhere and is expressed through material substances, that is somehow separate from these material substances and is inscribed onto them, is false. Beauty cannot be separated from beautiful things, and is a completely subjective project.
“Natural” or “nature” is kind of the same. What some see as “natural” others see as contrived. “Natural” varies across historical and cultural contexts. “Nature” doesn’t exist in a vacuum; the social and the “natural” exist together and interact with one another; “nature” is transformed through social practice.
The second problem I have with your comment is the ellision you’re making between women and nature. You’re objectifying women as “natural”, and on your continuum, “nature” is a thing, it’s frogs and sunsets and flowers and peacocks. And women. This kind of stuff is problematic.
Try working around this framework: “Women” are not static, unchanging, monolithic. Being a “woman” has meant different things throughout history, and varies from culture to culture. Since this is true, doesn’t that tell us the category of “woman” is not based on biology? For an even more salient perspective, think about intersexuals, people who are born with ambiguous genitalia or a mixture of chromosomes that result in mixed sex. These are people who are “naturally” occurring, have a biological reality, but are not at all adequately represented by the binary sex system we have set up which says there are only two sexes, male and female, and that’s it. There aren’t only two sexes - there are a multitude, and yet in our SOCIAL practice of sex and gender, we deny this biological truth.
biology isn’t really the truth about who we are as social beings.
subjective is something that exists as long you can’t quantify. you fail to convince me on the point.
the second issue is more severe. i do not group women with peacocks. just as when people say brave as a lion, he’s not grouping anyone with lions.
don’t fall into victim mentality, in which you see everything in terms of petriarchy.
i will stop commenting on this thread here. simply because you are overreacting. (like when i said peacocks are beautiful, you said i am grouping women with peacocks).
i think i am being misuderstood. i don’t want to hurt your feelings.
Manas - You were asked to explain yourself and chose not too. Don’t now pretend that TG is “over reacting” (those damn women, always so *emotional*) because you completely failed to make yourself clear multiple times.
Sex is biological. Gender is a social construct. That’s the objection to the false use of “natural” when used to describe artifical beauty standards of women.
And, btw, the “women look better than men” thing - that’s a classic sexist excuse for sexist beauty standards. I’m sure you didn’t mean to go there, right?
~~~~
TG - got some big things happening in the next few days. I’ll send along the next part of the post sometime next week. Thanks for being willing to look at it.
Manas - oh right - the victim mentality, over-reacting, hurt feelings. sure, that’s what’s going on here. it couldn’t be that using the “natural beauty” of frogs, plants, animals, and the sunset to say that women belong in that group as well is a bad idea. and it couldn’t be anything like a deep problem with privileging “nature” and “biology” over the social.
nope. gotta be a victimized, emotional, over-reaction. because after all, that’s only “natural,” coming from a woman.
Vera - thanks, exactly. boy does it get tiring sometimes, don’tcha find?
can’t wait to read!